How common are denied EB-1A petitions?

EB-1A petition outcomes vary based on the strength of evidence, the specific criteria addressed, and the adjudicating officer. Each case is evaluated individually based on its own merits and documentation.

How does the microbiology industry affect EB-1A petition outcomes?

The microbiology sector has unique considerations for EB-1A petitions. USCIS evaluates whether the petitioner's qualifications and contributions align with the specific requirements of the visa category. Industry context matters for demonstrating the significance and impact of the petitioner's work.

dismissed EB-1A RFE Issued

Pharmaceutical Production Manager

Microbiology · India · 2024-08-12

Decision Date

2024-08-12

Location

United States

This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

0 of 3 criteria met

Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (Not Met)

The petitioner submitted several certificates, but failed to establish that they were nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field of microbiology, or provided insufficient details about the award criteria or recognition level. The 'third prize' lacked context, 'Eminent Prudent India' lacked criteria, and the 'Certificate of Excellence' was for equipment installation dedication, not excellence in microbiology.

Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Not Met)

A single article from an Indian newspaper (Dainik Jagran) was submitted, but the English translation lacked the required certification of completeness and translator competence, and the author's name was missing, rendering it inadmissible.

Participation as a judge of the work of others (Not Met)

The petitioner's comments on WHO and USP draft documents were part of public consultations, not evidence of being selected or personally invited to judge the work of others in the field. The acknowledgments in WHO reports did not indicate a judging role.

Authorship of scholarly articles in the field (Not Met)

The petitioner's role as a commentor on WHO reports was not deemed authorship or editing. No scholarly article was established in connection with his keynote speaker role, and this point was not challenged on appeal.

Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation (Not Met)

While the petitioner demonstrated a leading role for his microbiology department and a critical role for his employer's pharmaceutical production facility, he failed to provide evidence of a distinguished reputation for his employer, department, or facility. References to 'state of the art' were deemed insufficient.

Why This Petition Was Denied

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found that the petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence, provide properly translated published material about himself, or prove participation as a judge of others' work (public consultations were not considered judging). Furthermore, the petitioner did not establish authorship of scholarly articles or a leading/critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. The decision emphasized that the petitioner did not show sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE questioned the petitioner's field of endeavor and the sufficiency of evidence for various criteria. The petitioner responded by clarifying his field as microbiology and submitting additional documentation, but the AAO found the response did not satisfactorily address the concerns for the criteria evaluated.

RFE Targets

Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awardsPublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major mediaParticipation as a judge of the work of othersAuthorship of scholarly articles in the fieldPerformance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation

Evidence

Evidence Types

Awards

Media Coverage

Judging Experience

Scholarly Articles

Leading Role

Evidence Submitted

certificate for presenting a paper at a conference (2008)
appreciation awards from employers
paper award 'Eminent Prudent India'
Industrial Excellence Award from H-L-, LLC
Certificate of Excellence from I I for equipment installation
single paragraph in Indian newspaper Dainik Jagran (2012)
comments on World Health Organization (WHO) draft documents
letter from USP acknowledging 'PF comments'
organizational chart showing role as senior manager, microbiology
letter from immediate supervisor (SVPO) detailing critical role

Similar Cases

Pharmacist

Healthcare · Brazil

USCIS EB-1A dismissed

2024-12-16

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the requisite number of evidentiary requirements for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her professional association memberships required outstanding achievements, that her scholarly articles were published in major trade publications, or that her work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases. The AAO did not reach the criterion for performance in leading or critical roles as it would not change the outcome.

Researcher

Biotechnology

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed

2024-10-04

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for at least three of the ten extraordinary ability criteria. For 'original contributions of major significance', USCIS found her work original but lacked evidence of major impact on the field, noting that citations alone (e.g., two papers with more than 28 citations out of nine published) did not inherently prove major significance, especially when expert letters failed to delineate field-wide impact. The AAO also noted that her research on auranofin, while original, was later found to lead to life-threatening conditions in subsequent studies, diminishing its positive contribution. For 'leading or critical role', the Petitioner failed to provide independent, objective evidence establishing the distinguished reputation of her employer as of the filing date, relying instead on self-promotional material and post-filing evidence. The AAO also rejected post-filing evidence for establishing initial eligibility.

Entrepreneur

Information Technology

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded

2024-12-26

The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director's analysis was insufficient. The decision did not adequately explain the reasons for concluding that the Petitioner failed to satisfy five claimed criteria (lesser awards, published materials, original contributions, leading or critical role, and high salary), nor did it discuss the evidence submitted in response to the RFE. The Director's analysis regarding the Petitioner's intent to continue working was also found to be copied verbatim from the RFE, indicating a lack of proper evaluation of the submitted evidence.

Research Scientist

Biotechnology · Armenia

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed

United States 2025-02-03

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a one-time internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the 10 EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the AAO found that a research grant was not awarded to the Petitioner personally, and a patent from Armenia did not qualify as an award for excellence (criterion i). Memberships were deemed employment-based or lacked evidence of requiring outstanding achievements (criterion ii). Published material only cited the Petitioner's work, rather than being 'about' her, and lacked substantial discussion (criterion iii). The patent and 40+ citations were not shown to be of 'major significance' due to lack of commercialization evidence, contextual comparison, or demonstration of actual impact since 2014 (criterion v). Finally, the Petitioner's various roles were not established as 'leading or critical' for organizations with a 'distinguished reputation' (criterion viii).

Frequently Asked Questions

A dismissed EB-1A petition means USCIS found the evidence insufficient to meet the eligibility criteria. Common reasons include weak documentation, failure to meet the required number of criteria, or insufficient evidence of the claimed qualifications. Petitioners can refile with stronger evidence or explore alternative visa categories.

Browse More Cases

More dismissed cases More Pharmaceuticals cases More cases from India

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-08-12.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome dismissed

RFE Issued

Criteria Met 0 / 3

Evidence Types 5

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881

Success Rate 52.9%

Sustained 466

Dismissed 299

EB-1A Overview EB-1A in India All EB-1A Cases EB-1A Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist